What if the federal government decided to start selling off swaths off public land?

[bpa556]

You know what's a tragedy? The number of former “Californian Texans” in Texas.

FIFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trumpkin The Dwarf]

Big Bend NP is larger than some states doofus.

Yeah, but you can't hunt it... there are a few draw hunts I think, but they're very low odds.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Your “example” sure as hell isn’t the reason there’s “no public land in Texas”…

There is public land in Texas. Between state and federal public lands, there’s total public land area in Texas larger than a handful of states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

900k acres you can't hunt...Largest state in contiguous 48 and it has roughly 0.1 acre per person of public hunting ground..National average is 2.1 acres....Bigger isn't always better...

 

[bpa556]

I have a hard time seeing the profit being worth the bad publicity. I wonder if there’s a valuation on all the National Forest and BLM in the country.

2023 federal budget was $6.2 trillion. How many years could be paid for when you sell off all the public lands really? Probably more logical to keep the taxpayers happy so they can continue milking us for all we’re worth.

While I agree with the spirit of your point, as a percentage of taxpayers, those that actually utilize wild public lands are a MINUSCULE fraction. I don’t think Uncle Sam selling off every acre of wild land would cause more than a 3 day news blip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

Depends on the land. There is a lot of federal land that is useless to wildlife and would be great for ag, industrial development, housing, etc. There are also areas critical to wildlife that are, unfortunately, being developed.

This is where I disagree… I think you set a precedent when you sell any of it. You start cutting a chunk here, a chunk there, cause it makes sense. Then all of a sudden, you are selling off hundreds of thousands of acres to the CCP to pay the debt… I also think throwing solar panels all over wintering grounds is an awful idea. It’s tough since some things like certain energy exploration and logging and grazing can be somewhat beneficial to everyone, but once you build hud housing on it, it’s never going back to open land scape where animals will roam.

 

[CorbLand]

Two things that always amaze me in these threads.

One. I get that this is a hunting forum but it always amazes me how many people only think that public land is for animals and hunting. Not the 100s of other ways one can recreate on it.

Two. People that want to go back to the animals belonging to whose land they reside on. Yes, go back because that was and largely is the system that GB has/had. You know, that country we shot back across an ocean and started own country to not be like.

 

[OneGunTex]

Yeah, but you can't hunt it... there are a few draw hunts I think, but they're very low odds.

You're thinking of Big Bend Ranch State Park, not the Natl Park. Ridiculously low number of permits.

Happens all the time when Federal land gets tranferred to a State that has a legislative requirement to balance the state budget...Federal Lands go to State Lands and then are sold off the highest bidder because state law requires a balanced budger. Older trick in the book...Ever wonder why there is no public land in TX?

900k acres you can't hunt...Largest state in contiguous 48 and it has roughly 0.1 acre per person of public hunting ground..National average is 2.1 acres....Bigger isn't always better...

There's almost no public land in TX because it's state land - which is in turn "school land", railroad grants (private) etc. The travesty is what you mention - that we can't hunt most of what is public. (Major exception - the entire Laguna Madre for waterfowl.)

I was fishing on a lake in TX recently and thought to myself - Nobody is fishing here, nobody is swimming here, in December/January. I would like to see public waterfowl seen as an acceptable use on every single public lake in the state, even if not the primary use. If this county decides that public swimming is #1 and fishing is #2, then whenever there is low/no usage for those purposes (e.g. 5-10am weekdays in the winter) there should be managed waterfowl hunting.

 

[OneGunTex]

I work in real estate and development, large swaths no, random inholdings etc absolutely need to be sold.

I absolutely agree that as a nation we should be looking for better utilization of any land that is kept public.
For example, the checkerboard makes no sense to me. Wouldn't both private landowners and the govt be better off consolidating those holdings?

An idea that has come into my head, to increase usable public land in the South and East, would be land swaps. Essentially, trade a Texan his 1000 acre ranch in exchange for an equivalent amount (presumably less valuable/more acreage) in the middle of nowhere in the West. Obviously taking into account other uses like timber. It makes no sense for FEDERAL land to be so concentrated out West for the benefit of those residents.

Bet this is gonna piss some people off hahaha

 

[WRO]

I absolutely agree that as a nation we should be looking for better utilization of any land that is kept public.
For example, the checkerboard makes no sense to me. Wouldn't both private landowners and the govt be better off consolidating those holdings?

An idea that has come into my head, to increase usable public land in the South and East, would be land swaps. Essentially, trade a Texan his 1000 acre ranch in exchange for an equivalent amount (presumably less valuable/more acreage) in the middle of nowhere in the West. Obviously taking into account other uses like timber. It makes no sense for FEDERAL land to be so concentrated out West for the benefit of those residents.

Bet this is gonna piss some people off hahaha

Texans need to stay in Texas, their ability to fuk up a good thing is legendary..

 

[OneGunTex]

Texans need to stay in Texas, their ability to fuk up a good thing is legendary..

Well now that's pretty harsh.
We're talking about Americans' use of Federal land.
It's ridiculous to suggest that residents of a particular state should have sole use of Federal lands in that state. Heck, the only restriction Texas puts on out of state hunters is a more expensive OOS license. We don't discriminate in draw odds or public land accessible to NRs.

 

[WRO]

Well now that's pretty harsh.
We're talking about Americans' use of Federal land.
It's ridiculous to suggest that residents of a particular state should have sole use of Federal lands in that state. Heck, the only restriction Texas puts on out of state hunters is a more expensive OOS license. We don't discriminate in draw odds or public land accessible to NRs.

Yup everyone should have access to use federal land, just don’t want the west to get any more infected with Texans or Utards.

 

[Bachto]

OP just likes stirring the pot.

 

[OneGunTex]

Yup everyone should have access to use federal land, just don’t want the west to get any more infected with Texans or Utards.

Ok sure fine, I've got a perfect solution for you then: we can sell off a third of Idaho to the highest bidder and use the cash to give Texans, Iowans, Connecticut-ers, and Alabamans something a little closer to home.

 

[HighUintas]

It will happen if dip$#!it's like Mike Lee and Phil Lyman are elected to office. Remember the sagebrush rebellion period? That's still alive and well although I think the proponents have taken a less conspicuous approach in recent years.

Public/private land swaps are already common, which many times aren't in the best interest of our public land. For example, there's the 2002 Winter Olympics in SLC and the public land swap for that a$$hat Earl Holding's ski resort Snow Basin. There's also a proposed land swap near Moab which is supposed to provide more affordable housing for the area, which would not happen and would only serve to make the land developers and legislators money.

In most cases, I do not even like public land swaps. There needs to be stricter requirements for proceeding even with a swap.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Imagine comparing an acre of USFS land in the upstate of SC to an acre of BLM in the desert of NV, lol.

There's tons of public land in the "east", most of it sucks for hunting compared to the private land in the same area because - in my not-so-expert opinion - conservative leaning rural landowners tend to manage their land and the state's wildlife much better than the Federal government does.

No, most rural landowners don't manage their land better, unless they are hunters who have some clue about land management.

I could put you on some some public hunting land in the Carolinas where you'd be begging to be on desert BLM hunting jackrabbits with a bow.

Straight up-and-down old growth, small over-hunted patches of scrub, or vast flat pocosin.

Next door on the private property... Same thing.

 

[WRO]

Ok sure fine, I've got a perfect solution for you then: we can sell off a third of Idaho to the highest bidder and use the cash to give Texans, Iowans, Connecticut-ers, and Alabamans something a little closer to home.

Or they could just buy liscense’s and hunt Idaho, problem solved.

 

[OKHunter84]

Big Bend NP is larger than some states doofus.

Very true. Even though it's only 2% public, 2% of Texas is still a lot.

 

[CJohnson]

No, most rural landowners don't manage their land better, unless they are hunters who have some clue about land management.

I could put you on some some public hunting land in the Carolinas where you'd be begging to be on desert BLM hunting jackrabbits with a bow.

Straight up-and-down old growth, small over-hunted patches of scrub, or vast flat pocosin.

Next door on the private property... Same thing.

I'd disagree on that first point, but it's just an opinion. Not a hill I'm willing to die on.

If it's a race to bottom, there's crappy public land hunting everywhere, lol. I could take you to several places locally and find just the opposite.

I hunt a private lease adjacent to a poorly managed chunk of NF and the hunting is great...

Honestly, the swamps around Myrtle Beach probably have a higher black bear density than anywhere else in the state and the only thing being farmed in that area is subdivisions.

 

[CorbLand]

I'd disagree on that first point, but it's just an opinion. Not a hill I'm willing to die on.

If it's a race to bottom, there's crappy public land hunting everywhere, lol. I could take you to several places locally and find just the opposite.

I hunt a private lease adjacent to a poorly managed chunk of NF and the hunting is great...

Honestly, the swamps around Myrtle Beach probably have a higher black bear density than anywhere else in the state and the only thing being farmed in that area is subdivisions.

What defines "poorly managed?"

Public land is managed for multiple use. So it may be poorly managed for one thing while being well managed for another.

 

[dlee56]

While I agree with the spirit of your point, as a percentage of taxpayers, those that actually utilize wild public lands are a MINUSCULE fraction. I don’t think Uncle Sam selling off every acre of wild land would cause more than a 3 day news blip.

Yeah I kind of agree. That or none of us would even know about it until one day there’s a no trespassing sign on our favorite trailhead.